Dynamically change deadline of a workitem

[Michael Pokraka]

Hi Patrick,
>From a users perspective, I've found it rare for users to display a work
item, they usually like to barge in and execute it - preferably without
reading the text.
In fact through the Portal/UWL it is more obscure to just display an item
via the little display icon rather than just clicking on the description =
to
execute it - which has been a small gripe of mine for some time.
 
There isn't really any functional difference between required and latest
end, but it's a common enough requirement to have two deadline actions -
e.g. a reminder and an escalation time. As a matter of habit I always put
things which end the item (modeled deadlines) as the latest end and
notifications onto the requested end. This always leaves the option to ad=
d
another later one if it becomes necessary.
 
Cheers
Mike
 
de Valensart Schoenmaeckers, Patrick wrote:
> Hi Mike.
>
> I like your idea of combining required start and required end (or lates=
t
> end? By the way, I never understood the difference between the two. Any=
one
> knows?). Thanks for the tip!
> The difference with our requirement is that here the user would not nee=
d to
> explicitly say that he wants to keep the workitem for 15 more day, just
> executing the workitem and the canceling would be enough. However, this=
 is
> at least worth being presented to our process owners.
>
> Regards,
> Patrick
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Pokraka [mailto:workflow at quirky.me.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 7:01 PM
> To: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: Dynamically change deadline of a workitem
>
> Hi Patrick,
> Can you not play around to make the requirements suit the workflow? e.g=
. use
> a 'required start' instead of a 'requested end' deadline for the origin=
al
> one week deadline. Thus if someone executes it, the deadline no longer =
gets
> triggered. Then have a second requested end deadline within 3 weeks, or=
 even
> a third - latest end.
> Alternatively, the loop option isn't so bad, with 'step not in workflow=
 log'
> you can still keep your log less confusing on 620.
> Cheers
> Mike
>
> de Valensart Schoenmaeckers, Patrick wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In a dialog approval step (type activity, delegated object method
>> ZWFIPP.Approve), I need to give the user the choice to keep the workit=
em
> for
>> an additional fifteen days (the original deadline being set to workite=
m
>> creation + one week). I see two ways to do that:
>> - I end my method with a specific result value _WI_RESULT =3D "Keep" w=
hen
> the
>> user chooses to change the deadline. Then I model my workflow so that =
it
>> changes the container element "Deadline", and loops back to the approv=
al
>> step in case its result is "Keep".
>> - I pass the workitem number to my workitem, and program a deadline ch=
ange
>> in my object method "FIPP.Approve".
>>
>> The first possibility works for sure, but is making workflow definitio=
n
> even
>> more complex and risks to create a lot of workitems, making workflow l=
ogs
>> difficult to read for an average user. Therefore I would like to try t=
he
>> second possibility. I found function module SWW_WI_DEADLINES_CHANGE, b=
ut
>> it's not very well documented. Anybody used it before? Otherwise, who =
has
>> arguments to make me change my mind ;-) ?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your always valuable help.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> P.S. By the way I am on WAS release 6.20
>>
>>
>
>